Is there a reason why some of the Byzantine cultures from CK2 didn't make it to CK3?

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

CatilinamSum

Pesky Immersion Guy
38 Badges
Apr 29, 2015
632
146
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Cities: Skylines - Natural Disasters
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II
1707244791776.png


Given how much of CK2's database was directly ported to CK3, I'm confused as to why several of the Byzantine group cultures were inexplicably excluded. These are Arberian, Coptic, and Gothic (representing the Crimean Goths). The Latin heritage Dalmatian culture of the Adriatic coast is also missing.

I'm curious as to why these cultures weren't included. Given our upcoming Byzantine-themed expansion, this is also a request to bring them back. I especially miss Arberian/Albanian and Dalmatian. It's true that players could technically form their own hybrid/divergent cultures to represent these cultures, but this doesn't do justice to their actual heritage - Arberians were the last of the Illyrians or Thracians, while Dalmatians were among the final Romance-speakers of the Balkans.
 
  • 16
  • 4Love
  • 3Like
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
CK2's history was ported before either Holy Fury or Iron Century IIRC
That makes sense, but seeing as they added a few of the Holy Fury cultures anyway (Slovien, Carantanian), why not go back and add the rest? Seems like the perfect time. It would also be extremely little work since they already have complete name lists from CK2.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Goths aren't numerous enough to be represented in Crimea. There were more greeks in the relevant seats of power there like in the city. Plus it's so few counties (like two) and it doesn't merit it.

Arberian would be nice, but it's not necessary since it similarly also doesn't have much relevance until later in the CK3 period given lack of historical rulers.
 
  • 5Like
  • 5
Reactions:
I hope they don't make the mistake of labelling the entirety of Anatolia as Greek. Historically speaking only the coastal fringes of Anatolia were ethnically Greek, descendants of Ionian Greeks (who themselves are completely different from the Greeks in Hellas). I hope to see more of a distinction there including Anatolian cultures.

I also want to see less rebellions popping up and instead those with a claim should utilize the new mechanics that are going to be introduced to obtain the Byzantine throne without having to go on a 200 year civil war.
 
  • 6
  • 3Like
  • 3
Reactions:
I hope they don't make the mistake of labelling the entirety of Anatolia as Greek. Historically speaking only the coastal fringes of Anatolia were ethnically Greek, descendants of Ionian Greeks (who themselves are completely different from the Greeks in Hellas). I hope to see more of a distinction there including Anatolian cultures.

I also want to see less rebellions popping up and instead those with a claim should utilize the new mechanics that are going to be introduced to obtain the Byzantine throne without having to go on a 200 year civil war.
Its not a mistake to call them all greek, theres been a millenia of assimilation and hellenisation to occur
Goths aren't numerous enough to be represented in Crimea. There were more greeks in the relevant seats of power there like in the city. Plus it's so few counties (like two) and it doesn't merit it.

Arberian would be nice, but it's not necessary since it similarly also doesn't have much relevance until later in the CK3 period given lack of historical rulers.
Eu4 has them as gothic as well instead of tatar. Ck3 has plenty of tiny cultures even if theres little differences, the ai can also make tiny divergent cultures
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
My take: I don't see the downsides to having cultures that are limited at game start to just a few (or even a singular) county. But the culture does need to be mechanically distinct, otherwise there's zero point. Changing just one or two things might not be enough to justify.

Also note this is one area where mods 100% shine.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
My take: I don't see the downsides to having cultures that are limited at game start to just a few (or even a singular) county. But the culture does need to be mechanically distinct, otherwise there's zero point. Changing just one or two things might not be enough to justify.

Also note this is one area where mods 100% shine.

I'd normally agree, but we can safely assume Roads to Power will add a host of new Byzantine traditions. Adding these cultures back just makes sense. It's similar to how the Iranian cultures (and their adjacent friends, like Saka, Tocharian) received a major facelift with Legacy of Persia.
 
  • 8
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Paradox made Cumans and Kipchaks have completely different culture traits despite being the same culture historically. They can make any of these cultures different enough if they tried.

Ideally in a perfect world I would like to see these actually historical cultures added as they had counties under Byzantine control in 1066:
Arberian
Crimean Gothic
Dalmatian/also called Romans(Romani)
Melkite/also called Romans(Ruman)
Aromanian
West Syriac/Jacobite

Gothic is clearly the most problematic given unlike in CK2 where it inhabited 3 counties, it would only now inhabit 1 in CK3. But CK3 does already have 1 county cultures. However they were ruled by a foreign Greek Strategos while Cherson underneath him ran by the local Greek speaking Gothic Nobility. CK2 tried solving that by just making these historical governors Gothic instead lol. It’s hard to speak of the Gothic culture when all their uncovered findings are in Greek script and are in Byzantine style or imported from Byzantium. They maintained their identity but what that meant is sadly all but unknown, doesn’t help all the modern works on them are in Russian alas.

Jacobites are in a unique situation where they are well sourced with high ranking clergy and writers, making up the majority of probably the most counties of any of these cultures, but also for having no locally appointed rulers under the Muslims, Byzantium or Crusaders.

Aromanians and Arberians are not the greatest sourced in 1066 but are still sourced with autonomous local leaders, named in the Vlachs case, with a few confirmed majorities in a small amount of counties. Then you have the fact they would grow in importance in the following centuries after 1066.

Dalmatian is unique in that it consisted of multiple city states and their hitherlands plus a few islands in the Adriatic while being surrounded by Slavs on all sides. In the early period they were ruled by Byzantine apointed Duxs or Archons with their highest native ranking official being the Bishop and the capital of the province being in Zadar. This Byzantine official got reworked to being a Strategos and Dalmatia a Theme in the 800s. By 900 however we can confirm the cities were managed by local Mayors called a Prior under the Strategos who shared their power with multiple aristocratic Tribunes By the end of the 900s, the Prior of Zadar was also often the Strategos or Katepan of Dalmatia and thus in charge of the entire theme.

In the 1066 start however the Katepan of Dalmatia in Zadar is a man named Leo and seemed to be an appointment from Constantinople. Some theorize he was also a local Dalmatian or Croatian who was the former Archon of Croatia, so there is leeway here though. Ragusa in the south meanwhile was under the direct control of a Byzantine Greek Strategos who’s name escapes me at moment. The Madii family were the prominent recorded Dalmatian family of the 1066 start that were even Strategoi until a member was imprisoned and replaced by appointments from Constantinople. Longest part of this post cause it took me 6hrs of research to make sure I was being accurate here :(

Reminder though that Dalmatian while Latin and considered as such centuries after 1066, was heavily influenced by the Croatians and Serbs that surrounded them and were constantly integrated/assimilated into its Urban Elite. So Slavic names at the very least would make up a fair portion of their name list.

Melkite would be the easiest given they controlled a well sourced area and were both Douxs and Patriarchs of Byzantine Antioch with recorded names as the dominant and favored population behind Byzantine Syria.

And I have to say People who talk about splitting up Greek in Anatolia can’t even provide hard evidence to back up why it should be split and you won’t find any cause there is none yet discovered as of 2024. The peoples of Anatolia had been throughly Romanized aka Hellenized by the Roman state centuries before our first Start with the very last, the Isaurians, being smashed and have their centuries long autonomy destroyed by the Emperor Anastasius 350 years before 867.

A better argument imo is what areas should not be Roman Greek and that’s what I’m presenting by talking about people such as the Syrian Melkites and Jacobites.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Paradox made Cumans and Kipchaks have completely different culture traits despite being the same culture historically. They can make any of these cultures different enough if they tried.

Ideally in a perfect world I would like to see these actually historical cultures added as they had counties under Byzantine control in 1066:
Arberian
Crimean Gothic
Dalmatian/also called Romans(Romani)
Melkite/also called Romans(Ruman)
Aromanian
West Syriac/Jacobite

Gothic is clearly the most problematic given unlike in CK2 where it inhabited 3 counties, it would only now inhabit 1 in CK3. But CK3 does already have 1 county cultures. However they were ruled by a foreign Greek Strategos while Cherson underneath him ran by the local Greek speaking Gothic Nobility. CK2 tried solving that by just making these historical governors Gothic instead lol. It’s hard to speak of the Gothic culture when all their uncovered findings are in Greek script and are in Byzantine style or imported from Byzantium. They maintained their identity but what that meant is sadly all but unknown, doesn’t help all the modern works on them are in Russian alas.

Jacobites are in a unique situation where they are well sourced with high ranking clergy and writers, making up the majority of probably the most counties of any of these cultures, but also for having no locally appointed rulers under the Muslims, Byzantium or Crusaders.

Aromanians and Arberians are not the greatest sourced in 1066 but are still sourced with autonomous local leaders, named in the Vlachs case, with a few confirmed majorities in a small amount of counties. Then you have the fact they would grow in importance in the following centuries after 1066.

Dalmatian is unique in that it consisted of multiple city states and their hitherlands plus a few islands in the Adriatic while being surrounded by Slavs on all sides. In the early period they were ruled by Byzantine apointed Duxs or Archons with their highest native ranking official being the Bishop and the capital of the province being in Zadar. This Byzantine official got reworked to being a Strategos and Dalmatia a Theme in the 800s. By 900 however we can confirm the cities were managed by local Mayors called a Prior under the Strategos who shared their power with multiple aristocratic Tribunes By the end of the 900s, the Prior of Zadar was also often the Strategos or Katepan of Dalmatia and thus in charge of the entire theme.

In the 1066 start however the Katepan of Dalmatia in Zadar is a man named Leo and seemed to be an appointment from Constantinople. Some theorize he was also a local Dalmatian or Croatian who was the former Archon of Croatia, so there is leeway here though. Ragusa in the south meanwhile was under the direct control of a Byzantine Greek Strategos who’s name escapes me at moment. The Madii family were the prominent recorded Dalmatian family of the 1066 start that were even Strategoi until a member was imprisoned and replaced by appointments from Constantinople. Longest part of this post cause it took me 6hrs of research to make sure I was being accurate here :(

Reminder though that Dalmatian while Latin and considered as such centuries after 1066, was heavily influenced by the Croatians and Serbs that surrounded them and were constantly integrated/assimilated into its Urban Elite. So Slavic names at the very least would make up a fair portion of their name list.

Melkite would be the easiest given they controlled a well sourced area and were both Douxs and Patriarchs of Byzantine Antioch with recorded names as the dominant and favored population behind Byzantine Syria.

And I have to say People who talk about splitting up Greek in Anatolia can’t even provide hard evidence to back up why it should be split and you won’t find any cause there is none yet discovered as of 2024. The peoples of Anatolia had been throughly Romanized aka Hellenized by the Roman state centuries before our first Start with the very last, the Isaurians, being smashed and have their centuries long autonomy destroyed by the Emperor Anastasius 350 years before 867.

A better argument imo is what areas should not be Roman Greek and that’s what I’m presenting by talking about people such as the Syrian Melkites and Jacobites.

The game is so fast and loose with its timeline already that I don't think having Arberian and Aromanian in the 867 Balkans setup would be ahistorical. Bosnian is already on the map, after all.

I don't recall Dalmatian having much Slavic influence in CK2, but they could very easily update its name list for CK3.

I think the Melkites and other Middle Eastern Christians might be better reserved for a Near East/Crusades DLC with the Holy Land as its focus.
 
The game is so fast and loose with its timeline already that I don't think having Arberian and Aromanian in the 867 Balkans setup would be ahistorical. Bosnian is already on the map, after all.

I don't recall Dalmatian having much Slavic influence in CK2, but they could very easily update its name list for CK3.

I think the Melkites and other Middle Eastern Christians might be better reserved for a Near East/Crusades DLC with the Holy Land as its focus.
Bosnian makes sense considering the bosnian curch.

Also Aromanian and Dalmatian are alredy in the game, both being potenital divergences and hyrbid cultures.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The game is so fast and loose with its timeline already that I don't think having Arberian and Aromanian in the 867 Balkans setup would be ahistorical. Bosnian is already on the map, after all.

I don't recall Dalmatian having much Slavic influence in CK2, but they could very easily update its name list for CK3.

I think the Melkites and other Middle Eastern Christians might be better reserved for a Near East/Crusades DLC with the Holy Land as its focus.
Ngl, when I made my post I completely forgot about 867 lol.

The first source for both in the region is in the 900s as part of Bulgaria but I agree I have no problem with them being in there in the 800s as these are mountainous rural poor regions where sourcing would be scarce to begin with. Only hesitant in the fact the 800s is when the migratory Slavs are gonna be felt for the last time with many lingering tribes being reported in the same areas as the later reported Vlachs and Albanians.

And definitely disagree on the Melkites, their name itself means Royal, for their religious loyalty to the Byzantine Emperor as the Melkites are the Greek Orthodox Arabic Speaking Syrians who never converted to Islam despite assimilating Arabic cultural ways and maintained a unique etho-religious identity to this as Rum/Romans. Similar to the Copts.

But unlike the Copts, the Byzantine reconquered Cilicia, Antioch and the Syrian Coast where they endorsed the Melkites as the dominant group behind their power in the region and encouraged their colonization of reconquered Byzantine Lands. Melkites were treated as Romans by law in the empire making them first class citizens with rights they used to their advantage to leverage over the also Syrian Jacobites and Armenians who had also colonized the area at the Emperors request. No other time in history would the Melkites have this much political power and thus I cannot imagine not including them in a Byzantine dlc.

From 978-996 Agapios was the Melkite Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch

From 1052-1056 Petros III was the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch during the Great Schism and tried to mediate the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch.

In 1068 the Bilingual Melkite Petros Libellisios was Doux of Antioch and captured Manbij during the Syrian campaign of Romanos Diogenes.

His relative some time in the mid 1000s, John Libellisios who was a judge in Constantinople and later secretary of the Emperor.
The Epi tou kanikeliou

In 1066, the Great Arab Christian Physician from Bagdad Ibn Butlan was a monk in Antioch.

Nikephoros Mosaraph commander of a Tagma in Anatolikon who was originally a Syrian Muslim from around Antioch before converting to Greek Orthodox during the 2nd half of the 1000s. Also had 3 relatives in imperial service.

This is not accounting the writers and Historians who translated Greek and Arabic works into vice versa. Melkites also included Levantine and Egyptian Greek Orthodox but the main body to this day is the Syrians however the Empire invited all them like the Egyptian Writer Yahya of Antioch who settled in Antioch.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Bosnian makes sense considering the bosnian curch.

Also Aromanian and Dalmatian are alredy in the game, both being potenital divergences and hyrbid cultures.
I do remember seeing those culture names crop up when I used to play with AI divergence/hybridization on. I also remember it bugging me because they're used incorrectly; the Aromanians and Dalmatians were descendants of Latin-speaking peoples from the Balkans, not the result of some novel fusion or syncretism. It's the equivalent of making "Norman" a default name for any random divergence/hybrid from Norse. They deserve better! In the case of the Aromanians, they're even still around today.
 
I do remember seeing those culture names crop up when I used to play with AI divergence/hybridization on. I also remember it bugging me because they're used incorrectly; the Aromanians and Dalmatians were descendants of Latin-speaking peoples from the Balkans, not the result of some novel fusion or syncretism. It's the equivalent of making "Norman" a default name for any random divergence/hybrid from Norse. They deserve better! In the case of the Aromanians, they're even still around today.
the Dalmatians being a hybrid culture is weird I'll give you that, tough admittedly they can also appear as a divergent culture wich is better than most.

The Aromanians being a a hybridaization of Vlach(which in game literally represent all remanent Balkan Latinate cultures) makes a fair bit of sense, the issue arries from the distribution of Vlach culture in the Balkans, there is simply no way for the aromanian culture to emerge in an organic way to even remotly match the IRL one.

Also you joke but that's how norman culture works in ck3, it can emerge from norse culture and pretty much any french culture including betron, it dosen't even have to be in normandy it's seld, only the general north of france.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
the Dalmatians being a hybrid culture is weird I'll give you that, tough admittedly they can also appear as a divergent culture wich is better than most.

The Aromanians being a a hybridaization of Vlach(which in game literally represent all remanent Balkan Latinate cultures) makes a fair bit of sense, the issue arries from the distribution of Vlach culture in the Balkans, there is simply no way for the aromanian culture to emerge in an organic way to even remotly match the IRL one.

Also you joke but that's how norman culture works in ck3, it can emerge from norse culture and pretty much any french culture including betron, it dosen't even have to be in normandy it's seld, only the general north of france.
Norman in ck2 was any french or breton (including cornish), ck3 explicitly has it as neustria and with french
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: